Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
at winning that nomination. mitt romney had also run in 2008. remember? he lost to john mccain that year. but that year, 2008, also was not john mccain's first effort at winning the republican presidential nomination. he had run before as well. he had run in the year 2000, when he lost to george w. bush. and while that john mccain campaign and his loss that year has mostly been remembered for the egregiously racist dirty tricks played against john mccain in the south carolina primary that year, that's mostly what we think of when we think of him losing to george w. bush that year, now what is starting to become the more salient thing about that losing run, about that losing attempt at winning the republican presidential nomination, what seems more salient now is who john mccain's national co-chair was for that run. it was republican senator chuck hagel. there he is. you can see him in the little circle on the left there. with john mccain's entourage as john mccain was getting ready to launch his presidential bid back in 2000. this is the same chuck hagel who is president obama's nominee
the establishment. the karl roves, the john mccains say oh, surely now we'll get behind the gang of 8 and do the immigration reform. they can't get the house contingent to support even that, which is like a knife at the heart of the republican party demographically. so it shows this will be a long battle within the gop that will rage on for quite a while. not least because the biggest donors are not necessarily in tune with the base. some are, like the coke brothers, but others on wall street are not with the base like on immigration, abortion, gay rights. >> taxes only. >> taxes only. >> it will be really interesting to see on guns, thinking about president obama out in minnesota today with all the cops standing behind him. on background checks in particular, 92 public support for universal background checks. if republicans can't figure out a way to support something that has 92% to support the republicans and democrat also on that, i think, i don't know what happens next on them. it will be fascinating. >> it will be fun to watch from our point of view. >> okay, you can turn your tv back o
and john mccain who said that they would close guantanamo if they became president. it was also the guy who was still president, the guy who had opened up guantanamo in the first place. >> i'd like to end guantanamo. i'd like it to be over with. >> everybody knew that guantanamo was going to close. there was nobody against it. the prisoners who were still there when barack obama became president, well, the expectation was that a lot of them would continue to be processed the way that hundreds of them had already been processed by president george w. bush, which is that they would be sent to some other country. they would be repatriated. for the prisoners that were not going to be released anywhere for say the marquee prisoner who was ever held at guantanamo, khalid shaikh mohamud, the expectation for guys like him was they wouldn't get out of off juror pseudo limbo in cuba. they would get off that legal limbo that we hold in this prison offshore in a communist country that we don't have relations with and get out of that limbo and come here and face justice. attorney general eric holder ann
it. and so both senator john mccain and lindsey graham, republicans who are, you know, you would think -- who were also raising questions about hagel, turned on him at some point and basically said that he had gone beyond the pale. so i think you're right in wondering if there are some parts of this country where what's allowable is a different standard. i have to say i think you got it so right when you described what characterizes this kind of speech, though. when i was there, what so struck me was the specificity, the weird specificity of 12 professors on the harvard law who are communist and want to see the overthrow of the u.s. government. it seemed so on the face of it improbable to me, knowing harvard law school, which is basically turning out the men and women who are the pillars of the united states legal establishment, including many members of the united states supreme court. and so -- but it was that specificity that makes it sound like there must be something in it here. and -- but he never did name who they were. so when i wanted to follow up on this after there had
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)